"bb" wrote:

You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice.

and then he wrote:

I'm saying that asthma sufferers can have any kind of sex they want,
but don't tell me that there aren't capable of leading productive,
-working- lives.

You're the one who said "she has asthma and can't work." Which is it? If you
say she can't work in one post, and in a later post you say that she should lead
a "productive, -working- life", then there is some disconnect in your thought
process. Can she have sex or not? Will you dispatch Official Observers to
monitor how wild and passionate it is? If she gets pregnant, is it OK for her to
give birth, or should she hold it in until she gets a job?

So many questions!

3's, de Hans, "I invented Billy Beeper", K0HB

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote
bb" wrote

You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice.

I asked Brian N0IMD

Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild,
passionate sex or become parents?

Steve K4YZ chimed in with:


I am again forced to agree with Brian.


OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have

"wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and
health-care
professional Steve agrees with him.

...... any chance Hans gets to make himself
out to be better than anyone else is to be
expected.

But, but, but..... I wasn't "making myself out to be" anything.

I was making you and Brian out to be 67% of the Three Stooges for suggesting
"wild passionate sex" ought to be banned for asthma sufferers.

No matter what context you attach, that's still exactly what you said you were
"forced to agree with", Steve.

Twist, spin, or misdirect your way out of that one. (Consulting with Len is not
allowed.)

3's, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Steve Robeson K4YZ" wrote

bb" wrote


You see, she has asthma and can't work. But she can have wild,
passionate sex and get pregnant, then go through childbirth at least
twice.

I asked Brian N0IMD


Are you saying that asthma sufferers should not be allowed to have wild,
passionate sex or become parents?

Steve K4YZ chimed in with:


I am again forced to agree with Brian.


OK, folks, there you have it. Brian indicates that asthma sufferers who have

"wild, passionate sex" should not be eligible for SS benefits, and
health-care
professional Steve agrees with him.


...... any chance Hans gets to make himself
out to be better than anyone else is to be
expected.


But, but, but..... I wasn't "making myself out to be" anything.

I was making you and Brian out to be 67% of the Three Stooges for suggesting
"wild passionate sex" ought to be banned for asthma sufferers.

At the chance of interjecting something of use into this sorry thread,
the oil components of citrus fruits has been found to stave off asthma
attacks.

Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate sex they see fit to,
as long as it's legal.

Orange you glad you know that now?

bestest 7 10's and 3's

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate
sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal.

What sort of sex should not be legal (presuming employed non-asthmatic
consenting adults in the privacy of their own Studebaker)?

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote



Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate
sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal.


What sort of sex should not be legal (presuming employed non-asthmatic
consenting adults in the privacy of their own Studebaker)?


I'm not too judgemental, but I think people should confine their
activities to the same species.......... 8^P

- Mike KB3EIA -

She can work as a prostitute.

prolly most of the sex that you engaged in as a sailor.

bb wrote:

prolly most of the sex that you engaged in as a sailor.

How very profound, "bb". I never engaged in sex as or with a sailor.

Perhaps you'll want to revise your minimalists posts to include complete
thoughts and enough of a quote so that we'll have at least some idea of
what you're talking about.

Dave K8MN

N2EY wrote:

In article t, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Then they can engage in whatever wild passionate
sex they see fit to, as long as it's legal.

What sort of sex should not be legal (presuming employed non-asthmatic
consenting adults in the privacy of their own Studebaker)?

Pretty much anything, I would think.

However, I can well understand the outrage of those who have to pay and pay for
the consequences of others' irresponsible behavior.

Do you have some insider knowledge of irresponsible behavior on the part
of sexually active asthma sufferers?

Dave K8MN

N2EY wrote:

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:


snip

Yeah...fixed by Mr. 15% Inflation Carter. Uh huh...I remember. He
enacted
a 17.5% one time parity raise for the Armed Forces, then taxed the
bee-jeebers out of us.


WHOA!

Let's look at exactly what happened in that time period!

First off, the govt. started deficit spending in the '60s to pay for LBJ's
"Great Society", the Vietnam war, and the "space race". This deficit spending
and other fiscal changes resulted in rising inflation and interest rates.

Nixon and Ford tried to fight inflation with price and wage controls. (Remember
"WIN buttons"?). Didn't work - all that it did was delay the problem and make
it worse.

Isn't it amusing that the most left-wing socialist utterly failed
fiscal policy was implemented by *which party*?


In 1973 we got the OPEC boycott, and when it ended gasoline prices were
doubled. Which affected *all* energy costs, and all businesses that use energy,
and fed inflation like - throwing gasoline on a fire.

Carter inherited that mess from his Republican predecessors - who had inherited
the elements that started the mess from their Democrat predecessors.

Taxes were raised to keep the deficit from going even higher. At a time of high
interest rates, a high deficit can cause a runaway situation because you need
more and more money just to pay the interest on the loans.

You don't necessarily need high interest rates, Jim. They can suppress
the inflation for a little bit, but only a year or two.

I'm noticing inflation nipping at the edges of my purchases. Where I
get Breakfast at McD's they have raised the prices by 10 percent this
week. My XYL's flooring suppliers have announced a 20 percent hike
effective 1/1/2005.

People that think that we can support a virtually unlimited deficit
coupled with tax cuts *without* inflation are the same people that
thought that there was a new paradigm afoot in the stock market during
the late 90's.

If you continue to spend more than you make, you eventually go
bankrupt. It's that simple. Despite all we do, all the adjustments, all
all of it, we can not ignore a fundamental rule.

And in 1979 we got another OPEC boycott and another doubling of gasoline
prices.

So don't blame Jimmy Carter without also blaming those who came before him.

Blaming Carter for high inflation is simply so incorrect. Here is
another case of words and actions differing. Here you have an honest and
honorable man who was president at a difficult time in American history,
when we struggled to pay back those Moonshot and War expenses, and yet
he is ridiculed as a weak and ineffective president.

So much for "Character counts" !!!

History will probably be much kinder to JC than so many of us are now.

And the fact remains that married couples who both work pay *more* federal
income taxes than if they weren't married. That "marriage penalty" was partly
fixed by Carter and then unfixed by Reagan. If the Republicans are truly for
"family values", why is the penalty still there? It amounts to serious money,
not just a few dollars.

When actions and words differ, I rely on actions. Unfortunately, it
seems too many people rely on the words these days. Makes 'em very easy
to manipulate.

snip


Of course it's usually narcotics...You can always tell the real
abusers...They eat the narcs like M&M's, then wind up stopping the intestinal
tract. Then they develop a bowel obstrcution for which they ahve to go to
surgery. And of course surgery means more meds...See where this goes...???


Round and round....

I think that maybe it is Darwinism in action. Too bad we have to foot
the bill.

snip


Personally, I am all for "all of the above". I would add a whole
section
of the Sunday paper with a full color mug shots of those convicted of bilking
assistance programs because that's stealing from you and I. Peer pressure
and
a bit of humiliation go a long way towards modifying undesired behaviour.


That's a bit hazardous. If someone was convicted of fraud but then later won on
appeal, they'd go after the paper and the agencies in a big way for "distress"
and "defamation".

Steve, does your mug shots include people who steal money from the
Social security program?

And someone willing to play the game might not be that humiliated.

It won't work. In this day and age, there are people willing to
humiliate themselves to get on programs such as Jackass, The Swan,
Survivor, (pick a theme) Jerry Springer, or any of the other television
shows that allow idiots to get their visage on TV. There might be people
lined up to do this.


I recall that in some places there were anti-prostitution efforts that focused
on the *customers* rather than the *workers*, so to speak. Pictures and names
in the paper and all. I dunno how well those programs fared.

This usually fails. Some of the people who frequent those prostitutes
have deeep pockets, and aren't in a position to be affected by public shame.

There was a so-called Christian group semi-locally who were taking
pictures of license plates of people parked at adult book stores (do
they actually sell any books?) That usually goes on until they get sued,
and of course invariably someone is caught that ends up being an
embarrassment to the fundies.

This all relates to amateur radio in a very basic way:

The abuses mentioned by Steve and I are all the result of a mindset that
focuses on "rights" to the exclusion of *responsibilites*. Many of us see
proposed reductions in the standards of the ARS as a form of that mindset.

Jim, that is a *major* stretch, almost as if I were to say that *any*
message here is on topic, as well as any reply I make because my primary
mode is PSK31, which involves typing, and all these messages are typed! 8^)

You and Steve will never change each others minds about this political
stuff. If nothing else, you two have brought out that neither party has
a lock on fiscal responsibility, ethics, honesty, big picture thinking
or any of the other qualities we (should) look for in our leaders.

- Mike KB3EIA -